The Baldie Vs Mariology

[Spartacus]

If you don't want to believe how kardiognwsta is properly defined that is your choice. Other dictionaries and lexicons express the same thing.

I'm not arguing about its dictionary definition, I'm suggesting that it has a particular use in this context that you have catastrophically failed to understand. Knowing the heart is used as metonymy for omniscience; it is not perfectly synonymous with it.

[One Bad Pig]

Men that have not departed. The context (which you continually ignore) teaches this.

Something tells me we're not going to come to agreement on this.

The sainst can not fully understand the prayers of the Spirit because they do nto fully know the Spirit ...like God does.

Let me spell it out in larger letters; maybe that'll get through.

They don't have to!

Think!
1 billion people asking a person on this earth to pray for them would never work. You know it and i kjnow it but you just can't shake free of the heresy you so pathetically cling to.

I have thought about it, which is why I came to the position I now hold. I, too, once believed prayer to the saints was wrong. I'm not "clinging" to anything I haven't carefully thought through.

You too have fun with your fairy tale land of definitions.

Yes, how DARE I consult a dictionary to determine what a word means!?

goodbye

Are you leaving, or is this your subtle way of encouraging me to leave?

[37818]

You are partially making my point. There is absolutely nothing in the text of Luke to indicate that he is speaking of anything other than a normal father-son relationship. There's nothing in the text about Levirite marriage or Eli adopting Joseph or Eli being Joseph's father-in-law, no foreign parentheses, etc. Nothing. These ideas are all inserted into the text by those who want to claim there are no contradictions between Luke and Matthew or between Luke and the Jewish scriptures. Absent any of these ideas being inserted into the text, the basic simplest meaning of the text is that Eli was Joseph's father and there is no reason to understand it any differently based on the text of Luke.

You are also trying to force a meaning upon the text of Mk 2,26 that is just not there. The reason for the genitive in Mark is not because of sonship but because it is part of a prepositional phrase with the preposition 'epi' which takes the genitive case and commonly indicates 'the time of' or somtimes even 'in the presence of'. Mark would not use a prepositional phrase to indicate that Abiathar is the son of the high priest at that time: during the time of Abiathar, who was the son of the high priest. If he wanted to indicate the time when Abiathar's father was high priest, he would simply have used Abiathar's father's name. If someone wanted to refer to the political leadership in the US during the years of 1992-2000, would anyone ever say 'during the time when Chelsea Clinton, who was the daughter of President Bill Clinton'? No, we'd just say 'when Bill Clinton was president'. Your twisting the normal meaning of a text out of fear that there might be a minor inaccuracy. Did Mark make a small mistake, perhaps. Matthew and/or Luke probably thought so since they both deleted the whole phrase. If they understood the prepositional phrase to mean 'during the time of Abiathar the son of the high priest' they would have kept it or worded it much less awkwardly, eg, putting in the name of the actual high priest at the time. But rather than correct Jesus (or Mark), implying that one of them made a mistake, perhaps it seemed safer to delete the phrase entirely. Personally, I don't think it is a big deal. Abiathar soon became high priest so there's no real issue. Jesus did do this in the presence of Abiathar, who did soon become high priest. Or even if Jesus or more likely Mark had a lapse of memory and thought Abiathar was high priest at that time, why is that such a big deal?

The only point I'm making is we are arguing differences in interpretation and as such, deffernces in understanding.
A literal translation of Luke 3:23, , 38,
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli, Which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, which was the Janna, . . . _ . . . which was of Nathan, which was of David, . . . _ . . . which was of Seth, which was of Adam, which was of God."

In like manner, Mark 2:26, "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar of the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?" [When this event happened Abithar's father was then the high priest. Abiathar is not cited to be high priest at that time in the OT.]

As unto the subject of this thread, my understanding is we can not pray to Jesus through Jesus' mother. My question then for you, why is it important that we can or must? Or am I not understanding your view?

[robrecht]

The only point I'm making is we are arguing differences in interpretation and as such, deffernces in understanding.
A literal translation of Luke 3:23, , 38,
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was of Heli, Which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, which was the Janna, . . . _ . . . which was of Nathan, which was of David, . . . _ . . . which was of Seth, which was of Adam, which was of God."

In like manner, Mark 2:26, "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar of the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?" [When this event happened Abithar's father was then the high priest. Abiathar is not cited to be high priest at that time in the OT.]

As unto the subject of this thread, my understanding is we can not pray to Jesus through Jesus' mother. My question then for you, why is it important that we can or must? Or am I not understanding your view?

Would you not agree that some interpretations are better than others, eg, those being based on an understanding and familiarity with the language of the text? Those that are actually based on the text itself and not introducing external ideas into the text? I tried to explain to you above why I think my interpretation is better. Other than saying we just have different interpretations, as if all interpretations are equally likely to be true, do you have any argument(s) for saying that your interpretation of the text of Luke is better and I am wrong?

Be wary of anyone who claims that they are giving you a literal translation of a foreign language. A literal interpretation, when derived from a foreign language, is always and unavoidably just that, an interpretation. Translations can be more literal, less literal, even overly literal (which can be a very good way of learning syntax and idioms). Elements of what you present as a literal translation are in fact imprecise, overly literal, and interpretive.

1. Imprecise, in that you (or your source) interprets the genitive definite article as an impersonal relative pronomial clause, when it is in fact masculine and therefore personal.

2. Overly literal in that it does not account for the Greek idiom. The idiom is explained by one of the names (and primary functions) that the ancient Greek grammarians used for the genitive case--they called it πατρικήπενθερός and κηδεστής for father-in-law and γαμβρός for son-in-law. The LXX, Philo, and John the evangelist use πενθερός for father-in-law, and the LXX and Philo also use γαμβρός for father-in-law or, occasionally, son-in-law, as these terms were sometimes interchangeable.

3. Interpretive in the choice of word in the target language and the addition of foreign English punctuation. Your 'literal' translation of ἐνομίζετο is: , 'being (as was supposed)ἐνομίζετο, contains the root νόμος, ie, custom, law.

b) Modern punctuation did not exist in Greek, eg, the imposition of commas and graphic parentheses, which may unnecessarily divide these two words off from the rest of the sentence and subvert its meaning. It is indeed necessary sometimes in Greek to consider a longer phrase as a parenthesis (note the singular spelling) but this should only be done when the meaning of the whole and its parts do not fit naturally together, typically in a very long sentence.

What I propose as a more literal translation (not yet good English) would be something like this:

his father (1,32). Joseph goes to hismust pray to Jesus through Mary? That strikes me as rather strange and I would be surprised if someone here is saying that. I'm not even sure if people here are saying that we can pray to Jesus through Mary. Why not just pray to Jesus? I was under the impression that most people are speaking about asking Mary to pray for and with us, just as I might ask you to pray for or with my son who's sick that he get better. I think it is just a way to experience and promote the Body of Christ, both here on earth and together with the crowd of witnesses that has gone before us.